Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

Originally Posted by manurespreader

So to be a little more specific on the travel. MSU swaps BG for Miami and Ferris for WMU. They swap the Alaska schools for the Colorado schools which is a push cost wise since Alaska schools subsidize travel and since they lose the 4 games exemption. They swap UAH for ASU.( it's likely more money to go to ASU because hotels in Phoenix are so much more expensive) They swap BSU for UND.... and they get games vs Duluth and St Cloud that are in conference instead of out of conference.Some of the time but not all of the time.
The only other trips are to Lake State which is kind of far and Houghton which is medium far but Bus-able. The schedule would most likely be unbalanced in both scenarios. So for to me the costs are pretty close. Certainly it takes longer to go to Alaska, but it doesn't save money.
Still I think they would do it regardless . I don't see tournament considerations being part of the decision. In both cases they have a good shot because they are a good team either way. The only thing different I see is the fewer total games if you are a nacho team which translates into limited non con games and fewer total home dates.

You're kidding yourself if you think that trading the Alaska's for the Colorado schools is a wash. Flights from MSP to Denver is nowhere near the cost of what it is from MSP to anywhere in the WCHA (since Alaska only subsidizes the amount over and above the most expensive trip in the rest of the league). It's also a cheaper flight to Phx than it is to Huntsville (or anyone else in the league), so if there is a cost gain in hotels it's made up in hotels.

As for bus-able trips you'd be replacing trips of 7.5 hrs (MTU), 10 hrs (LSSU), 8 hrs (NMU) with trips of 2.25 hrs (St Cloud), 3.75 hrs (Duluth) and 4.75 (Omaha). Is it the end of the world? Of course not. Is it desirable to travel farther? Definitely not.

The other thing I would say is that there was a stat that MSU's attendance was up by roughly 7% since the conference shift. Of course, that ignores the fact that the cost of tickets went down by 11% and there is no "premium game" pricing any longer either. This is at a time when this team has averaged 24.5 wins in the 4 full seasons of the new conference alignment. Up from the previous 4 year average of 16.5 wins per season. That's not a small improvement, that's a very big one.

This is all to say that there is enough evidence to confidently the interest in the team would increase playing teams that have traditional rivalries with Mankato. They would increase the revenues. And it's not a stretch to say that there would be a decrease in expenses just due to proximity. I don't need to ask anyone with the university to see that interest is waning. I can see it every game. I can hear it when I talk to people. I can feel it when I'm in the arena. I can't talk to buddies or co-workers about hockey because I don't know a single person that went to a university in the rest of the conference (and that's not abnormal).

Look, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the conference. If it were just a competitive issue, I wouldn't think twice about staying. It really is the business side of it that I think the NCHC is a better fit for MSU. The geography makes more sense. The makeup of alumni makes more sense. The alignment of the other sports teams within the university makes more sense. The finances just make more sense. I truly believe the quality of the conference will go up (see what happened with the ECAC), but for all the other reasons, the NCHC make more sense for Mankato.

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

Originally Posted by JohnsonsJerseys

Denver couldn't even sell-out their medium size rink when they were in the stretch run of their national championship season. Nobody in Denver (other than DU alumni) cares about DU hockey. We already have the Avs and the Eagles an hour North (likely to be converted from a championship winning ECHL franchise to an AHL franchise shortly). An hour to the South you have CC and Air Force. Even being a doormat of the NCHC, CC has a stronger fan base than DU with a market that is 1/10th the size.

Attendance at DU games (or lack there of) has nothing to do with who DU is playing against. It's just DU hockey. Denver is a pro sports town, first and foremost. College hockey is 10th best option for the sports fan on a Friday and Saturday night. Even skipping the hockey options I mentioned previously, you still have the Broncos, Nuggets, Rockies, Mammoth (lacrosse), Rapids (soccer), Outlaws (lacrosse), Barbarians (Rugby)... and eventually if you have any sports dollars or time left to spend you get to DU hockey.

They are a small fish in a huge pond with a lot of other fish, most of which are larger with stronger fan bases. DU could play North Dakota every weekend and the only way attendance goes up is if UND brings more of their fans to town. Most DU fans likely don't even know in what cities Miami or WMU are located and they don't care. K-zoo, Houghton, Oxford, Huntsville makes no difference to them. Attendance isn't going to change up or down significantly.

Ryan

to be fair, like much of college hockey, the big ten schools help to draw because there are alums in big cities like denver.

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

With the success of the Golden Knights, I can easily see them adding hockey.

But they would be small fish with: NFL, NHL, already established college sports, and the soccer team.

Just to be clear. My disinterest in this team became of the Uni's disinterest. Without the success of the hockey team, the other teams would not be where they are. Way to pay back the hockey team. **** UAA.

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

Originally Posted by Bale

You're kidding yourself if you think that trading the Alaska's for the Colorado schools is a wash. Flights from MSP to Denver is nowhere near the cost of what it is from MSP to anywhere in the WCHA (since Alaska only subsidizes the amount over and above the most expensive trip in the rest of the league). It's also a cheaper flight to Phx than it is to Huntsville (or anyone else in the league), so if there is a cost gain in hotels it's made up in hotels.

As for bus-able trips you'd be replacing trips of 7.5 hrs (MTU), 10 hrs (LSSU), 8 hrs (NMU) with trips of 2.25 hrs (St Cloud), 3.75 hrs (Duluth) and 4.75 (Omaha). Is it the end of the world? Of course not. Is it desirable to travel farther? Definitely not.

The other thing I would say is that there was a stat that MSU's attendance was up by roughly 7% since the conference shift. Of course, that ignores the fact that the cost of tickets went down by 11% and there is no "premium game" pricing any longer either. This is at a time when this team has averaged 24.5 wins in the 4 full seasons of the new conference alignment. Up from the previous 4 year average of 16.5 wins per season. That's not a small improvement, that's a very big one.

This is all to say that there is enough evidence to confidently the interest in the team would increase playing teams that have traditional rivalries with Mankato. They would increase the revenues. And it's not a stretch to say that there would be a decrease in expenses just due to proximity. I don't need to ask anyone with the university to see that interest is waning. I can see it every game. I can hear it when I talk to people. I can feel it when I'm in the arena. I can't talk to buddies or co-workers about hockey because I don't know a single person that went to a university in the rest of the conference (and that's not abnormal).

Look, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with the conference. If it were just a competitive issue, I wouldn't think twice about staying. It really is the business side of it that I think the NCHC is a better fit for MSU. The geography makes more sense. The makeup of alumni makes more sense. The alignment of the other sports teams within the university makes more sense. The finances just make more sense. I truly believe the quality of the conference will go up (see what happened with the ECAC), but for all the other reasons, the NCHC make more sense for Mankato.

I get what you say and you're right about most of it.And like I said I'd still do it too, and I see that St Cloud is a bigger draw than lake state etc,... however, as far as Huntsville vs Phoenix and the Colorado schools and it's quibbling a bit, but.... I thought you guys chartered to farther away places. I'm pretty sure that was part of keeping Hastings was being able to charter out. if that's the case than a charter to Phoenix is 1600 miles from Mankato and a charter to Huntsville is 950. So it would cost quite a bit more to go to Phoenix. About 20,000 dollars more to be specific. Some of these charter companies charge by the hour some by the mile but either way it's further and costs more.

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

Whenever we talk about attendance, Bale's point is valid: schools raise or drop pricing, too. Economic shifts in the area change. Some schools go to smaller venues often or all the time (e.g. UAF with the Patty, right?). College hockey attenandce is, on the whole, decreasing — and for a lot of reasons. You can't index the drops post-realignment without this information.

Also, all ten WCHA schools would jump to the NCHC in a second if they could meet all the demands.

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

Originally Posted by gfmorris

Also, all ten WCHA schools would jump to the NCHC in a second if they could meet all the demands.

GFM

Our AD announced that the Nacho's approached BG to gauge our interest (he made it a point to say we were not offered a spot, but that they were inquiring as to our interest) at the time MSU and ASU applied. Per our AD, it wasn't a fit for us at the time and we told them as such. So 9 out of 10...

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

Originally Posted by TalonsUpPuckDown

Our AD announced that the Nacho's approached BG to gauge our interest (he made it a point to say we were not offered a spot, but that they were inquiring as to our interest) at the time MSU and ASU applied. Per our AD, it wasn't a fit for us at the time and we told them as such. So 9 out of 10...

BG passed because they didn't have the financials to compete in the NCHC. Mazey was always in favor of the program going to the NCHC, but those who understood the financial needs to compete knew it wasn't possible.

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

Two points puts them in the playoffs regardless of what anyone else does. It's probably lower if you account for the fact that UAA has soaked up 12 points. I'll try to answer that affirmatively later.

GFM

Pretty sure he's talking about the NCAAs. Next 2 games are St Cloud and Duluth. Win them and we probably in the national tourney with an at-large bid, lose both and we probably need to win the conference tourney. Split the games and we probably just need the games we "should win".

Re: WCHA Season Thread 2017-18: In Which We Try For Two Bids

Originally Posted by Bale

Pretty sure he's talking about the NCAAs. Next 2 games are St Cloud and Duluth. Win them and we probably in the national tourney with an at-large bid, lose both and we probably need to win the conference tourney. Split the games and we probably just need the games we "should win".

I don't think that a fan of a team that just lost to Alaska should be thinking about that.